ARELLANO, MARK ADRIAN P.

SPOUSES FELIX BAES AND RAFAELA BAES, petitioners,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 108065

LOCATION: Pasay

ARGUMENTS: Respondent Republic of the Philippines discovered that Lot 1-B (with TCT No. 14405)on
which the petitioners had erected an apartment building, covered a lot of the Pasay Cadastre (which is a
filled-up portion of the Tripa de Gallina creek). Moreover, it also discovered that Lot 2958-C (covered by
TCT Nos. 29592 to 29595, with an increased area) had been unlawfully enlarged.
Respondent then filed a petition for cancellation of TCT Nos. 14405 and 29592 to 29595.

Petitioner on the other hand claims that Lot 1-B (TCT No. 14405) are owned by them by virtue of Article
461 of the Civil Code.

Respondent The government rejects this claim and avers that the petitioners had already been fully
compensated for it when they agreed to exchange their Lot 2958-B with Lot 3271-A belonging to the
government.

DOCTRINE: (Article 461) If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of
his property due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the
course of the river is effected through artificial means.

FACTS: in 1962, the government dug a canal on a private parcel of land to streamline the Tripa de Gallina
creek, identified as Lot 2958.

This lot was later acquired by Felix Baes, who registered it in his name and then had it subdivided into three
lots, namely Lot 2958 (A), (B), (C).

In exchange for Lot 2958-B, which was totally occupied by the canal, the government gave Baes a lot with
exactly the same area as Lot 2958-B through a Deed of Exchange of Real Property.

Meanwhile, Baes had Lot 2958-C and a portion of Lot 2958-A designated as Lot 1, Blk., 4, resurveyed and
subdivided. On January 12, 1968, he submitted a petition for the approval of his resurvey and subdivision
plans, claiming that after the said lots were plotted by a competent surveyor, it was found that there were
errors in respect of their bearings and distances. The resurvey-subdivision plan was approved by the Court
of First Instance of Pasay City.

As a result, the old TCTs covering the said lots were canceled and new ones were issued, to wit:
(a) Lot 1-A, Blk. 4 under TCT No. T-14404;

(b) Lot 1-B, with 826 sq.m., representing the increase in area after the resurvey, under TCT No. T-
14405;

(c) Lot 2958-C-1, under TCT No. T-14406; and

(d) Lot 2958-C-2, representing the increase after resurvey, under TCT No. T-14407.
Lots 2958-C-1 and 2958-C-2 were later consolidated and this time further subdivided into four (4) lots
which were respectively issued TCT Nos. 29592, 29593, 29594, and 29595.

In 1978, the Republic of the Philippines discovered that Lot 1-B on which the petitioners had erected an
apartment building, covered Lot 3611 of the Pasay Cadastre (which is a filled-up portion of the Tripa de
Gallina creek). It then filed a petition for cancellation of TCT Nos. 14405(Lot 1-B) and 29592 to 29595.

Baes did not object in his answer to the cancellation of TCT Nos. 29592, 29594 and 29595.

The trial court therefore decreed that the original Lot 2958-C (with an area of 452 sq.m.) be reverted to its
status before the resurvey-subdivision of Lot 2958-C

The only remaining dispute relates to Lot 1-B (TCT No. 14405), which the petitioners, relying on Article
461 of the Civil Code, are claiming as their own. The government rejects this claim and avers that the
petitioners had already been fully compensated for it when they agreed to exchange their Lot 2958-B with
Lot 3271-A belonging to the government.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner is the owner of Lot 1-B pursuant to Article 461?

HELD: NO.
Article 461 of the Civil Code:
River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong
to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the
owners of the land adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof,
which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.

This article (461) refers to a natural change in the course of a stream.

If the change of the course is due to works constructed by concessioners authorized by the government, the
concession may grant the abandoned river bed to the concessioners.
If there is no such grant, then, by analogy, the abandoned river bed will belong to the owners of the land
covered by the waters, as provided in this article, without prejudice to a superior right of third persons with
sufficient title.

If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural
causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected
through artificial means.

The loss to the petitioners of the land covered by the canal was the result of a deliberate act on the part of
the government when it sought to improve the flow of the Tripa de Gallina creek. It was therefore obligated
to compensate the Baeses for their loss.

In this case, the petitioners have already been so compensated. Felix Baes was given Lot 3271-A in
exchange for the affected Lot 2958-B through the Deed of Exchange of Real Property. This was a fair
exchange because the two lots were of the same area and value and the agreement was freely entered into
by the parties. The petitioners cannot now claim additional compensation because, as correctly observed
by the Solicitor General, to allow petitioners to acquire ownership of the dried-up portion of the creek would
be a clear case of double compensation and unjust enrichment at the expense of the state.